USA v. Musgrave, 3:11-cr-183. (2017)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20171229a56
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER SETTING RESPONSE DEADLINE MICHAEL R. MERZ , Magistrate Judge . This criminal case is before the Court on Objections by the United States (ECF No. 283) to the Report and Recommendations on Restitution ("Report," ECF No. 282). In his Order recommitting the matter to the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration, District Judge Black recognized the right of both Defendant and the Intervenor to respond to those Objections, but did not set a deadline (ECF No. 284, PageID 6443). The Magistrate J
Summary: ORDER SETTING RESPONSE DEADLINE MICHAEL R. MERZ , Magistrate Judge . This criminal case is before the Court on Objections by the United States (ECF No. 283) to the Report and Recommendations on Restitution ("Report," ECF No. 282). In his Order recommitting the matter to the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration, District Judge Black recognized the right of both Defendant and the Intervenor to respond to those Objections, but did not set a deadline (ECF No. 284, PageID 6443). The Magistrate Ju..
More
ORDER SETTING RESPONSE DEADLINE
MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge.
This criminal case is before the Court on Objections by the United States (ECF No. 283) to the Report and Recommendations on Restitution ("Report," ECF No. 282). In his Order recommitting the matter to the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration, District Judge Black recognized the right of both Defendant and the Intervenor to respond to those Objections, but did not set a deadline (ECF No. 284, PageID 6443). The Magistrate Judge had anticipated that any response would be filed within fourteen days, which is the deadline set by rule in civil matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b) does not, however, set a deadline by rule.
It is accordingly ORDERED that any response by Intervenor or Defendant be filed not later than January 4, 2018.
Source: Leagle
